Buried amongst the untold affronts to the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and the very spirit of America, the torture bill contains a definition of "wrongfully aiding the enemy" which labels all American citizens who breach their "allegiance" to President Bush and the actions of his government as terrorists subject to possible arrest, torture and conviction in front of a military tribunal.

Subsection 4(b) (26) of section 950v. of HR 6166 - Crimes triable by military commissions - includes the following definition.

"Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct."

For an individual to hold an allegiance or duty to the United States they need to be a citizen of the United States. Why would a foreign terrorist have any allegiance to the United States to breach in the first place?

This is another telltale facet that proves the bill applies to U.S. citizens and includes them under the "enemy combatant" designation. We previously cited the comments of Yale law Professor Bruce Ackerman, who wrote in the L.A. Times, "The compromise legislation....authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights."

The New York Times stated that the legislation introduced, "A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted."

Calling the bill "our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts," the Times goes on to highlight the rubber stamping of torture.

"Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses."

Since with this bill, in the aggregate, Bush has declared himself to be above the Constitution and the laws of the United States, the allegiance of American citizens is no longer to the flag or the freedoms for which it stands, but to Bush himself, the self-appointed dictator, and any diversion from that allegiance will mandate arrest, torture and conviction in a military tribunal under the terms of this bill.

Similar to the UK's Glorification of Terrorism law, which top lawyers have slammed as vague, open to interpretation and a potential weapon for the government to kidnap supposed subversives, the nebulous context of "wrongfully aiding the enemy," could easily be defined to include publicly absolving an accused terrorist of involvement in a terrorist attack.

This should leave us with no doubt as to which parties are the target of the government's torture and intimidation campaign.

Could protesting a war approved by the government and their bootlickers in Congress and the Senate be considered breaching an allegiance to the United States? Could campaigning against the bombing of a target country be considered wrongfully aiding the enemy?

When the USA PATRIOT act was rushed through at the height of an anthrax scare without any members of Congress even having time to read it, we were assured that it was to fight terrorists and would not be used against the American people.

Since then a plethora of cases whereby the USA PATRIOT act was used against U.S. citizens emerged, including the internment without trial for over three years of Jose Padilla, an American citizen who was finally released after no evidence of terrorism was uncovered.

The so-called "compromise" before the bill was passed and the media acclaim of John McCain as some kind of human rights champion is one of the biggest con jobs ever inflicted upon the American people.

Shortly after the bill was finalized it was spun by Bush security advisor Stephen Hadley as "good news and a good day for the American people." McCain said that it safeguarded "the integrity and letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions."

In truth the legislation does the exact opposite, giving Bush carte blanche to "interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions."

In addition, under the bill, "No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories."

The bill also allows hearsay evidence (obtained via phony confessions after torture) to be considered by the military tribunal and bars the suspect from even having knowledge of the charges against him - making a case for defense impossible. This is guaranteed to produce 100% conviction rates as you would expect in the dictatorships of Uzbekistan or Zimbabwe and other torture protagonists who are in many cases allied with the Bush administration and provide phony confessions obtained from torture that allow the U.S. government to scare its people with the threat of imaginary Al-Qaeda terror cells waiting to kill them.

Gonzales has the sheer gall to attack judges for even considering to "overturn long-standing traditions or policies without proper support in text or precedent," which is exactly what Gonzales, Bush and the rest of the White House criminals are doing themselves by de facto abolishing the Bill of Rights!

This is a dark day for the United States, the day America died and the bastard birth of a literal dictatorship.

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

"We Contracted to Kill Him"

(on the subject of Bin Laden)-Bill Clinton

Well, an enemy is an enemy. War is war. But, hiring hit men and other shadowy criminals is another matter. I think Clinton is stepping up to the plate now regarding a number of important issues. Clinton’s slip might say what is, business as usual, in America. Other nations are other nations. Other country’s leaders can’t be arrested by America’s police, and America’s governing elite just can’t kill those standing in the way of their ripping off the world’s resources and assets. My two cents.

-Steven G. Erickson a.k.a. blogger Vikingas

P.S. Maybe I’ll just take a boat ride to see Castro in Cuba, have a drink, smoke a cigar, and if Castro will see me, take a picture of he and myself giving Bush the finger, emailing it to Bush. I think Socialism and Communism are bogus, but what the corporations and Mr. 1984, George W. Bush, are doing is nothing resembling freedom, free enterprise, or anything the American forefathers ever intended.

Fidel Castro

Mr. Castro,

I would like to take a boat ride to see you. We can each smoke a cigar. I would like to pose for a picture with you. Maybe or maybe not, we could each wave, just sit, or each give Bush the finger to be emailed to the White House. Maybe we could even have a drink. I would then like to return for the possible consequences to a “Free Country”.

Please let me know if you will receive me. I will post this message to you on www.freespeech.com

-Steven G. Ericksonstevengerickson@yahoo.comA former US Held Political Prisoner held for testing Free Speech and the validity of the US Constitution

Saturday, September 23, 2006

CBS 60 Minutes, NBC Dateline, PBS Frontline, HBO special features

Maybe these people should contact Kathleen Dickson regarding something that should be nationally exposed....................

A brain with a fluid pocket from advanced Lyme Disease

Lyme Disease isn’t curable, it can be manageable. Spirochetes are corkscrews chewing the brain and spine. They are ever changing and masking their dirty work. Fluid starts to deposit itself in the middle of the brain and the brain is smashed against the skull for a Texas size headache.

Kathleen Dickson is a former research scientist for Pfizer.

She has had Lyme Disease for about 18 years. She gave birth to 3 children that were congenitally infected with Lyme.

Kathleen will have about 3 hour bursts of energy and will then sleep one to five hours and the cycle repeats endlessly. She can’t work, she is disabled with Lyme.

She took ceftriaxone intravenously for about 3 months. Her medical bill was $108,000. Her medical insurance first was willing to pay for it, then they said they would not. It was the only medicine that brought a quality of life back, normal life.

The public should know the truth about Lyme Disease.

Kathleen could be shown in the advance stages of Lyme Disease coming back to life to the person she once was, or as close as now is possible.

If producers found a way to pay for her much needed courses of Ceftriaxone, her quality of life could be brought back.

Any takers out there? This could be a national, if not international, exposure of a massive corporate, insurance, and Big Pharma fraud on the world.

Friday, September 22, 2006

The real Kathleen Dickson story

Having your kids taken away is one of the worst things you can do to someone.

Standing up to authorities that don't want to lose their jobs or see their friends nailed is why the system in Connecticut is so unfair. Other states are as bad, or in some cases, worse.

By allowing officials to get away with perjury, lying, manufacturing of evidence, and of suppressing of evidence the abuse only becomes more prevalent.

We need to send American officials a message that they are accountable for their actions and they will be punished when they do wrong.

Kathleen Dickson alleges that Jessica Gauvin, a DCF big wig said that Kathleen Dickson mailed her a threatening letter, but did not produce it for Kathleen's trial. Kathleen also alleges that she sent the same exact letter to a judge and others detailing Gauvin's crimes and Kathleen's accusations of crimes committed by officials.

Well, if Gauvin could not produce any evidence of wrongdoing, why were charges pursued?

The courts are unfair in Connecticut and in too many states.

If you are put in a mental hospital, then in prison, not told what you are charged with and are then offered a deal where you get to keep your property, so you are not committed to a mental hospital, you are then to be let out of abusive confinement, and you are told to sign a document that you will not criticize the government and try to report criminal activity of officials, what would you do?

Would you then have any real choice?

Kathleen Dickson was listed as an expert witness in an FDA hearing where a dangerous drug was taken off the market.

Hundreds of millions of dollars of research went down the drain.

It is not Kathleen Dickson's fault that corporate fraud hurt so many citizens and children. She should have gotten a good citizenship award for her efforts and courage. She stepped on the Mafia-like tail of Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut and Smith Kline Beacham.

She was then arrested and later her kids permanently taken away. Others that connect the dots, are high functioning, that are sick with Lyme, or just expose corrupt officials, can suffer the same fate. Is that ok with you?

There are too many officials covering for other officials. Too much fraud and official crimes could be exposed. Scores of officials and their friends could end up and arrested, so there is still a cover up going on.

You, that are reading this, are being ripped off in the Kathleen Dickson case if you are paying Federal Taxes or if you pay Health Insurance, or find yourself needing some sort of medical treatment.

Wouldn't you want honest health care, fair prices, and effective treatments? Well those that have spoken for you in your best interest, should these whistleblowers be barbecued without anyone doing or saying a thing?

Well, your legislators can by found at searchgov.com, why don't you take the time to write a letter mail it, and then follow up with a phone call? Please make mention of this post.

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Connecticut is about Corruption, not Fairness and Equality

A memorandum that appears to lay out a comprehensive agreement between the Hartford Housing Authority and Meriden developer Salvatore Carabetta surfaced Wednesday, raising new questions about relationships at the heart of a lawsuit alleging bid-rigging and corruption.

The document, dated July 31, 2002, appears to give Carabetta and his partnership, SOC Group Inc., a strong hand in an effort to modernize public housing in Hartford's North End. It assigns his company responsibility for drafting a plan, raising money, choosing architects and pushing forward several projects aimed at replacing the city's aging housing developments.

But the memorandum, the existence of which has been rumored since ousted Executive Director Lancelot Gordon Jr. filed a federal suit last week to get his job back, was characterized Wednesday by many key players as something of a mystery.

Officials say they've never seen an original copy.

No one seems to know who wrote it.And the official whose signature appears on at least one circulating version of the document said he never signed anything.

"I don't know where the damn thing came from," John D. Wardlaw, Gordon's predecessor as executive director, said Wednesday.

Wardlaw said he was stunned when authority officials confronted him about the document.

"I told them point blank ... that this document is bogus, I'm not involved in it, I wasn't aware of it, and they acknowledged that, and I walked out," Wardlaw said.

"Come on, not only is it not something I could sign, it is something I wouldn't sign."

Carabetta, whose signature also appears on the memorandum, could not be reached. Repeated calls to him Wednesday and during the past week have not been returned.The relationship between Carabetta and the authority is a key element of a federal lawsuit filed last week by Gordon, the ousted executive director. Gordon, 58, was fired after less than a year by the authority's board of commissioners over allegations that he failed to follow the authority's procurement policy in connection with nearly $11,000 in financial transactions.

But Gordon claims in the lawsuit that he was fired because he was trying to uncover entrenched corruption at the agency.

Among several allegations, Gordon claimed in the lawsuit that authority board member Angel Arce invited him to a July 2004 meeting with Carabetta at the Olympia Diner in Newington, and tried to persuade him to help steer the $300 million redevelopment project at Westbrook Village and Bowles Park to Carabetta.

Arce has denied that the Olympia Diner meeting ever took place, or that he tried to push for Carabetta. Arce declined to comment Wednesday on the controversy surrounding the memorandum.

Two ProjectsThe agreement dates to the summer of 2002, when the authority was working to select a developer for two projects: the rebuilding of Dutch Point and Nelton Court.

According to meeting minutes and officials familiar with the talks, there were two finalists: The Community Builders of Massachusetts, and SOC Group Inc. - a partnership between Carabetta and Sheldon Oak Central Inc., a nonprofit housing developer in Hartford. The choice rested with a committee of authority officials and neighborhood representatives.

But with the panel divided, the developers agreed to split the two projects, according to officials and minutes from meetings. The Community Builders would do Dutch Point, and SOC Group Inc. would do Nelton Court. To consummate the deal, memorandums would be finalized with each developer.

It did lay the groundwork for that project, as well as a $7 million plan for SOC Group Inc. to build the second phase of a new project at Stowe Village.

It also appears to spell out a more far-reaching vision for improving public housing, "deconcentrating poverty," relocating residents, and "transforming the market of the neighborhood" on the north side of Hartford, including the planned $300 million redevelopment of Westbrook Village and Bowles Park.

"We wanted to do not only Nelton Court, we wanted to do a complete redevelopment," Daniel O. Merida, head of Sheldon Oak Central, said of his company's interest in beautifying and building a larger part of the city's North End.

Merida said his interest was in Nelton Court, and Carabetta's interest was in Stowe Village. But together they had an interest in the city as a whole, he said.

"I didn't want to do one building in Nelton Court, like Nelton Court is an oasis," Merida said.

"I wanted to do the right thing, which was to redevelop block by block."

In the end, the SOC Group Inc. and Carabetta did not win contracts to rebuild any of the projects outlined in the memorandum. The second phase of Stowe Village was awarded to a Hartford company; a Massachusetts developer has been selected to rebuild Westbrook Village and Bowles Park; and the authority is still in the process of selecting a developer for Nelton Court.

Merida said he was aware of the document.

"Of course I've seen it," Merida said.

"I gave input. I know that Sammy [Salvatore Carabetta] signed it because it was something that was very exciting."

`It Just Showed Up'

Others were far less clear about the memorandum or its significance.Gordon said Wednesday that sometime around May or June 2005 the memorandum "popped up" in his office in an interoffice envelope with his name on it, but no clear indication of who left it there.

"It just showed up," Gordon said.

"I was looking at this thing and saying, `What the hell is this?' "

Gordon said he recalls reading the document with amazement, unable to believe what he was seeing. He characterized it as another example on a growing list of possible improprieties he was finding at the authority.

"It was basically someone selling our whole house," said Gordon, who was appointed interim executive director shortly before the memorandum arrived on his desk.

"It made no sense at all, because these things have got to go through a competitive process."

Gordon said he then tried to determine the document's origins. He took it to Loo Pacacha, the agency's attorney, who had only been hired a few weeks earlier.Pacacha said Wednesday that she remembered the visit, saying it happened sometime in June 2005.

She said she told Gordon that, because she was new to the agency, she had never seen the document before and would need time to review it; the document Gordon brought her, Pacacha said, had no signatures.

"We were trying to piece together what happened, and there wasn't a lot of information," Pacacha said Wednesday.

Still answerless, Gordon decided to call Carabetta and was told that "the person who knew about it was on vacation." But a week after that phone call, Gordon said, the company sent him a copy of the memo. That one, unlike his own copy, had two signatures - Wardlaw's and Carabetta's.

Gordon said his next step was to set up a meeting with Wardlaw at the Gold Roc Diner in West Hartford to ask the former executive director about the memo.

On Wednesday, Wardlaw reiterated what he says he told authority officials when asked about the memo:

"I have told them, I have absolutely no knowledge, no nothing, as it relates to the content of that document," Wardlaw said.

"That thing read as if there had already been decisions made, that there was no bid process. ... It just looked like something that, I don't know, I knew I couldn't do it.

"I was involved with a lot of things, and one of the things I did not necessarily get heavily involved in was awarding contracts like that," Wardlaw said.

"I had a committee that would always look at that kind of stuff, and they would recommend something to me. But I don't recall that at all."

Rudolph Arnold, who was then the authority's legal counsel, said Wednesday that such a memorandum would have been brought to his attention, but he had no recollection of any such document.

Courtney Anderson, the authority's board chairman, said the panel was puzzled.

"Among the commissioners, the first question was, was this real, did someone in-house produce this [memorandum of understanding]?

Did Carabetta write this MOU?

Was it a real arrangement between John Wardlaw and these guys?" he said.

"After the board talked to Mr. Wardlaw, we came to the conclusion that this thing ain't real; we turned it over to legal counsel. Then Carabetta also got legal counsel, and it's been a legal issue since."

Letter To Pacacha

For all the disavowals, documents obtained by The Courant indicate that in 2005 Carabetta had a lawyer - who is now a Superior Court judge - meet with Pacacha in an effort to get the authority to recognize the developer's rights concerning the redevelopment of city housing projects.

The lawyer, Robert G. Gilligan, who was appointed as a judge earlier this year by Gov. M. Jodi Rell, followed up that meeting with a letter to Pacacha on July 13, 2005, saying it was "important to communicate my client's position at this time, which is that the agreement is valid and binding ... ."

Gilligan, who could not be reached for comment Wednesday, wrote that Carabetta had rights under the agreement concerning not only the Nelton Court and Stowe Village projects, but also the Bowles Park and Westbrook Village projects. He concluded that it was "imperative that this matter be resolved" before the authority went forward to solicit bids on Bowles Park and Westbrook Village.

But Pacacha dismissed those claims in a letter to Gilligan two weeks later, saying that "all obligations and expectations between the parties regarding this issue are ... terminated."

As the controversy over the memorandum unfolded Wednesday, there were several new legal developments.

Hartford Mayor Eddie A. Perez announced that the City Audit Commission will coordinate its investigation with the inspector general's office of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Also Wednesday, state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said his office also has begun a preliminary investigation into Gordon's corruption allegations.

Sunday, September 10, 2006

What's up in Connecticut?

Ex-chief justice admitted misstep, senator testifiesBy:Alex Wood, Journal Inquirer09/06/2006The morning the news broke that former state Chief Justice William J. Sullivan had delayed release of a controversial court decision to help Justice Peter Zarella's chance of being confirmed to succeed him, Sullivan appeared in the outer office of the legislature's Judiciary Committee.

The committee's Senate chairman, Andrew J. McDonald, testified Wednesday before a state disciplinary council that he agreed to meet with Sullivan, although he had ignored an attempt by the former chief justice to talk with him a short while earlier in the parking garage attached to the Legislative Office Building in Hartford.

During their meeting in his office, McDonald recalled, Sullivan admitted in blunt, locker-room language that he had made a mistake.

"I ------ up," the Stamford Democrat quoted Sullivan as saying.

That was one new detail that emerged during Wednesday's hearing of the state Judicial Review Council - held coincidentally in the Legislative Office Building - on allegations that Sullivan violated various canons of judicial ethics by delaying the release of the decision to help Zarella.

Sullivan, now a semi-retired senior justice, started to testify during the final hour of Wednesday's hearing. But he didn't discuss the allegations against him, spending the entire time detailing his personal background and the achievements of the judicial branch of state government during his more than five years as chief justice. The hearing and Sullivan's testimony are scheduled to resume Sept. 19.

Based on the cross-examination and legal arguments Sullivan's lawyers have presented so far, it appears unlikely that they will mount a serious challenge to the truth of the claim that he delayed the decision's release to aid Zarella. Their focus instead has been on whether his actions represented a violation of the state's Code of Judicial Conduct.

But the lawyers, Robert J. Cooney and Edward Maum Sheehy of Trumbull, still took their share of pokes at the credibility of Sullivan's accusers, suggesting that animosities stemming from office politics and state politics had much to do with the disciplinary case.

Accuser attackedJustice David M. Borden was the first to take the issue of Sullivan's conduct outside the private chambers of the Supreme Court, sending April 24 letters to Gov. M. Jodi Rell and legislative leaders that became public almost as soon as they reached the legislature.

After a proposal that the full court file an ethics complaint against Sullivan failed on a 3-3 tie vote, Borden filed the complaint on his own, leading to Wednesday's disciplinary hearing.

In cross-examination Wednesday, Cooney suggested that Borden may have skated close to an ethical line himself in 2004 by soliciting the filing of a "friend of the court" brief by a University of Pennsylvania law professor on a legal issue in which Borden has a particularly keen interest.

But Borden denied having done so, admitting only that University of Connecticut law Professor Paul Berman mentioned to him during a conversation over dinner that the Penn professor, Theodore Ruger, might be interested in filing a brief.

Borden said he told Berman that there is a procedure for requesting permission to file such a brief, gave him the name of the case at issue, and said Ruger should contact the court clerk.

When questions arose as to the propriety of Borden's conduct, Sullivan advised him in writing to make a full disclosure of the relevant information to the parties, adding that Borden would have to decide whether to disqualify himself from further consideration of the case.

Borden did disqualify himself but maintained that he hadn't invited the filing of the brief. He testified, however, that he apologized for the possibility that he had left that impression.

Legal approach at issueThe issue that got Borden into the scrape was an approach to interpreting statutes that he has long championed and that the Supreme Court adopted in 2003 in deciding a death-penalty issue involving Robert Courchesne, who was convicted of killing a pregnant woman and the baby born after her death in Waterbury. Courchesne later was sentenced to death.

In the Courchesne case, the court moved away from the traditional legal principle that courts should look first at the "plain meaning" of a statute and should consider other evidence, such as legislative history, only if the statute is ambiguous.

The legislature subsequently passed a law requiring the court to return to the "plain meaning" rule. The friend-of-the-court brief, which was never submitted, would have dealt with the constitutionality of that statute.

In the decision that Sullivan delayed this year, the court ruled that the state Freedom of Information Commission lacks jurisdiction over records of court cases, specifically computerized docket information.

In that same 4-3 decision, with Sullivan and Zarella among the majority, the court hinted that it might hold unconstitutional any future attempt by the legislature to control records of court cases.

But Cooney suggested in cross-examining McDonald that the senator may have been more concerned with party politics than institutional prerogatives. The defense lawyer confronted McDonald with a letter in which he and the Judiciary Committee's other co-chairman, Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, D-East Haven, suggested that Sullivan delay the effective date of his resignation until Jan. 1.

In speaking to reporters after the hearing, Cooney left no doubt what he had been driving at: Such a delay would give the governor elected in November the appointment of the new chief justice.

If an official breaks the law it is a misstep, if a private citizen dared so seriously breach the US Constitution or the law, he or she could expect to be arrested and do time.

Judges should not be above the law.

If Judges weren't responsible for giving high and mighty officials immunity from prosecution, there would be so much less corruption in Connecticut.

Rowland would not have dared to do all he did. He did do time, but if a private citizen did all Rowland did and wasn't mob connected like his judge and cronies are alleged to be, someone other than Rowland would have spent decades or even the rest of their life in prison.

Chief Justice Sullivan needs to be arrested. Until he is and punished correctly using the law, judges, prosecutors, police, and other officials will continue to rip off the public, break the law, and retaliate against citizens that dare ask for officials to act in the public's best interest.

VERNON - A Superior Court judge sent a former town police officer to prison for 18 months Wednesday on charges that the ex-officer revealed confidential information about drug probes to his then-girlfriend and illegally accessed police computer databases.

The former officer, John Troland, 30, had pleaded guilty in June to third-degree computer crime and pleaded under the Alford doctrine to interfering with police.

Though Tolland County State's Attorney Matthew C. Gedansky said those charges are "about as innocuous sounding as possible," the prosecutor said Troland put his fellow officers in "untold danger" danger and placed "many lives in jeopardy" when he gave his girlfriend secret information about drug investigations.

In accordance with a plea deal in the case, Troland faced a maximum of two years behind bars at Wednesday's sentencing before Judge Terence A. Sullivan. Gedansky asked the judge to impose the two-year term, calling it "extremely lenient."

"These are not isolated incidents," Gedansky said.

"This is a pervasive pattern of abuse by someone in a position of trust."

Troland's lawyer, Robert Britt, asked Sullivan to give Troland a suspended jail sentence and probation with "rigid conditions," saying the stigma of his convictions would "offer a lifetime" of punishment and deterence.

Britt said Troland had been "scared straight every day for the past year and a half," adding that if Troland were sent to jail, he'd be "a constant target."

The ex-officer's lawyer said that Troland accepted responsibility for his wrongdoing, and Troland apologized to the judge, saying he "took great pride in serving the town."

"I can see that I put myself in a very reckless situation," Troland said.

"I clearly used poor judgment. I feel horrible about it. I simply just want the opportunity to get on with my life."

But though Sullivan agreed with both Gedansky and Britt that Troland's reckless behavior "was not designed to harm anybody," the judge said his actions were "nevertheless very harmful."

"It's perfectly clear to this court at least that not only have you disgraced yourself, but you've dishonored the men and women of the Vernon Police Department," Sullivan said.

The judge said that though a suspended jail sentence might deter Troland, "it's not going to deter anybody else," and that others have to know that if they do the same thing they will receive "the same punishment or worse."

"This is behavior that cannot be tolerated in a civilized society," Sullivan said before imposing a four-year prison sentence, suspended after 18 months, with four years of probation.

After Troland is released from prison, Sullivan ordered him not to possess any weapons, have no contact with the Vernon Police Department, not seek reinstatement as an officer there or work in any other law enforcement capacity anywhere, and maintain full-time employment or school.

Troland, who joined the Police Department in January 1998, resigned last July, when he was arrested on charges of eight counts each of interfering with police and second-degree reckless endangerment, 108 counts of third-degree computer crime, and two counts of false entry by an officer.

Police began investigating Troland last April after his ex-girlfirend, Sherri Lane-Cheema, went to police and said that Troland had threatened to kill her.Though police eventually determined Lane-Cheema's allegations of threats made by Troland could not be substantiated, claims she made about Troland providing her with information about the East Central Narcotics Task Force were corroborated by other witnesses, a police affidavit said.

Between March 2004 and February 2005, the affidavit said, Troland provided Lane-Cheema, who had been arrested on a crack-selling charge in East Hartford about seven years ago, with intimate knowledge of several different task force operations. On at least two occasions the subjects of task force investigations were tipped off with information that Troland had given her.

Lane-Cheema also told police that Troland would use the state police computer system to see when one of her old boyfriends would be getting out of jail, an affidavit said.

In court Wednesday Gedansky said Troland used the system to run 31 checks on Lane-Cheema, 18 checks on her father, four checks on a prospective girlfriend, and three checks on an ex-girlfriend

Added: Friday September 08, 2006 at 01:12 PM ESTThe truth about John TrolandI am John's best friend, and all I have to say is this..... Don't believe everything you hear! John is a wonderful man, who did not deserve this. I am ashamed of the town of Vernon, as well as the police dept, judge, and prosecutor for their complete lack of compassion in this case. John made a huge mistake, but he is a good man, and by NO means deserves to be sent to prison! His Family and I are standing by his side, and will be here to welcome him with open arms when this is all over! I Love you, John, and miss you more than you will ever know! -Jillian Stafford-!Jillian Stafford, manchester, CT

I am watching Fox News live now, and Charlie Daniels was playing with the pictures of the Twin Towers, the WTC, in the background along with other shots. There is a lot of flag waving and seemingly a call to arms. The two sides of the equation are polar opposites. I can’t believe I was so willing to accept so many US government lies.

Judges in Connecticut can do as they please and I don’t believe there is American freedom. Yes, other nations have far more abusive and greedy regimes, but the US could do better. Supreme Court Judges and all judges in all states should face elections and arrests and punishment if they break the law. The law applies to everyone or it is not law.

9-11 to me is being taken advantage of by those in Connecticut State government that wanted to squash my Free Speech and hold me as a political prisoner for contacting elected officials proposing laws making police and judges to act in the public’s best interest with Civilian Oversight. Connecticut is not the USA, but so many of the rich and powerful dictate to the rest of the the US and to the world just because they are richer, they think they are better. Let’s send these Blue Blood assholes a message.

It would be pretty convenient for the rights takers to allow the WTC buildings to be hit. They then would have unlimited power and covert ability to rip off America and all the other nations that are buying the current administration’s absolute line of crap.

Loving your nation is also about ACTING for one’s nation. Questioning authority, the money they are spending, and what they are doing to the world is needed in larger numbers. Stand up and be counted, don’t be silent.

POLITICSRowland-Era Figure To Be Sentenced Piotrowski Lied About His Role In Steering ContractSeptember 11, 2006 By EDMUND H. MAHONY, Hartford Courant Staff Writer

A former state public works officer who acted as a go-between in the contract-steering scandal that contributed to the collapse of the Rowland administration could be sentenced to as much as 10 months in prison when he appears in federal court in New Haven today.

Richard F. Piotrowski is accused of lying to federal authorities about delivering a message from former Rowland co-chief of staff Peter N. Ellef Sr. to members of a state committee that selects government contractors. The message: Ellef wanted a company owned by the politically connected Tomasso family to be given a multimillion-dollar state contract to manage construction of a jail for teenaged boys in Middletown.

Piotrowski has pleaded guilty to two counts of making a false statement: He lied both about the message delivered in behalf of Ellef and about thousands of dollars in gifts he accepted from businessmen hoping to get work from his agency. Piotrowski, 61, retired as the public works department's chief of facilities, design and construction in late 2003 and is collecting a monthly pension of $3,078.

Today's sentencing suggests that the FBI, IRS and federal prosecutors have finished sorting through another piece of evidence in the years-long contract-steering and corruption case that already has sent Ellef, William A. Tomasso and former Gov. John G. Rowland to prison. But several sources have said the investigation is continuing.

Federal prosecutors said as much last spring when they disclosed they were continuing to examine allegations of wrongdoing by unidentified figures associated with the Rowland administration.

A variety of sources have said that Piotrowski's then-boss, former state Commissioner of Public Works Theodore Anson, is among those figures.

Prosecution documents filed publicly in federal court say that Piotrowski was told by one of the few public works officials senior to him that Ellef wanted to make sure the contract for the Connecticut Juvenile Training School went to TBI, a Tomasso family construction unit.

"The DPW official emphasized to Piotrowski that it was important to Ellef that TBI get the project," the documents say.

Neither Piotrowski nor the prosecutors will identify the public works official who passed along the message from Ellef. However, Anson was one of two DPW officials senior to Piotrowski who was involved in the training school contract. Anson's role in the process has been closely examined by FBI and IRS agents.

Anson could not be reached Sunday.

Anson, a Rowland appointee at public works, resigned in September 2003 after it was disclosed that he accepted free architectural drawings for a $190,000 addition to his Bridgewater home from Kaestle Boos Associates of New Britain. Kaestle Boos is an architectural firm that was closely associated with Tomasso companies.

When Piotrowski was told about Ellef's support for the Tomassos on the Middletown project, he was one of five members of a public works committee appointed to select a construction manager for the training school.

Piotrowski told the unidentified senior public works official he would convey Ellef's message to other committee members, according to federal prosecutors. According to prosecution documents filed in federal court, the committee members voted on April 23, 1999, to award the contract to the Tomassos after getting the message from Piotrowski. When he pleaded guilty in June, Piotrowski said he initially lied about his role in steering the training school contract during an interview with authorities on June 19, 2003.

Piotrowski also admitted at the time that he lied again to federal investigators, in May and July of 2003, about gifts he accepted in return for favors he did or was expected to do for businessmen hoping to win state contracts. According to information filed in federal court, Piotrowski substantially understated the number of gifts he received. Neither Piotrowski nor federal prosecutors would detail the number or type of gifts.

However, sources familiar with the matter said they involved champagne and meals that, collectively, were valued at less than $10,000. Under the sentencing guidelines used in federal court, Piotrowski faces a prison sentence of from four to 10 months and a fine of from $1,000 to $10,000. Ellef and Tomasso pleaded guilty to corruption-related charges in October 2005.

In April, Dorsey sentenced both men to 30 months in prison.

Rowland was sentenced to a year and a day in prison on unrelated corruption charges.

* * * *added Sept. 23, 2006, 8:21 PM EST:

Judge Orders State To Pay Contractor Is Eligible For $1.2 Million Payment Even Though It Refused To Cooperate In Legislative ProbeSeptember 23, 2006 By JON LENDER, Hartford Courant Staff Writer

A judge has ordered the state to fork over a $1.2 million payment that officials had been withholding from a construction contractor who gave a controversial $5,000-a-month consulting contract to ex-Gov. John G. Rowland in 2004 and then refused to cooperate with a legislative probe into it.

Superior Court Judge Joseph M. Shortall ruled this week that state officials cannot justify withholding the money from C.R. Klewin Northeast LLC on the basis of company executives' resistance to a legislative committee's investigation of lucrative consulting jobs that Rowland got from state contractors after he resigned in July 2004.

"The court ... sees nothing wrong with the subject of a legislative inquiry raising legal questions about the jurisdiction and authority of the particular committee to conduct the proposed inquiry," Shortall wrote in a decision dated Wednesday.

He added that state officials, represented by Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, "have failed to submit anything that would support their claim that the court should ... deny Klewin ...."Shortall ordered state Public Works Commissioner James T. Fleming and Comptroller Nancy Wyman to arrange within 60 days to pay Klewin, a Norwich-based contractor, the $1.2 million that it is owed under a construction settlement negotiated by state officials in late 2004 - before public disclosure that Klewin had hired Rowland in July of that year.

Blumenthal said Friday he disagrees with the judge's ruling but will not decide whether to appeal until consulting the office of Gov. M. Jodi Rell. A Rell spokesman said the governor "hasn't had a chance to review the decision."

Klewin's lawyer, Eliot B. Gersten, said Friday:

"The attorney general's office spent a lot of money in an effort to punish Klewin for challenging the legislature. Fortunately the court recognized that agreements are made to be performed."

The controversy dates to Klewin's 2001 claim for $2.7 million in what it said were extra costs incurred in doing major construction and renovations at Manchester Community College. Public Works officials and Klewin reached their $1.2-million compromise in late 2004.

The offices of Rell and Blumenthal later signed off on authorizations to settle and pay the claim.However, then federal prosecutors disclosed in March 2005 that Rowland got lucrative consulting work from Klewin and another state contractor soon after his July 2004 resignation.

The prosecutors - saying Rowland should receive a stiffer prison sentence on a corruption conviction than the year-and-a-day he got - revealed that in November 2004, Rowland contacted a UConn official to try to settle a separate dispute over a Klewin construction contract at UConn.

That touched off months of controversy in 2005 - including the legislative hearings and an unsuccessful attempt by then-Chief State's Attorney Christopher Morano to obtain a warrant for Rowland's arrest on an ethics charge.

The state legislature's government administration and elections committee began hearings in May 2005. Klewin representatives went to court to fight the committee's subpoenas. Earlier this year, a judge upheld the legislative subpoenas, but the matter is under appeal.

Meanwhile Klewin never got the $1.2 million officials had agreed to - and in December, the firm filed its court action against Rell, Fleming and Wyman.Blumenthal fought that effort by questioning Rowland's relationship with Klewin. He argued that the consulting arrangement may have violated the state's "revolving door" statute.

Shortall wrote that the state's defense boiled down to one claim - that Klewin's "refusal to cooperate with the GAE committee's investigation is sufficient cause" to deny the payment.But Shortall didn't see it that way.

He also found that "the record ... makes it clear beyond question that Mr. Rowland had nothing whatever to do with " the $1.2-million settlement "which is at issue in this case.

"The settlement "gives Klewin a clear legal right to payment" and "creates a corresponding, mandatory duty" by Fleming and Wyman to pay, Shortall wrote.

Thursday, September 07, 2006

'Goat-free roads made me speed'

................Police said goats had not been reported on eastern Ontario's roads

A Swiss man caught speeding on a Canadian highway has blamed his actions on the absence of goats on the roads.

The man was caught driving at 161 km/h (100mph) in a 100 km/h (60mph) zone.A traffic officer's notes said the Swiss driver had said he was taking advantage "of the ability to go faster without risking hitting a goat".

Canadian police spokesman Joel Doiron said he had never found a goat on the highways of eastern Ontario in his 20 years of service.

"Nobody's ever used the lack of goats here as an excuse for speeding," Mr Doiron told the AFP news agency.

"I've never been to Switzerland, but I guess there must be a lot of goats there," he said.

The driver was ordered to pay a fine of C$360 ($330; £175) for speeding.